The Question what kind of tournament do you want to go to?

[Mystic Force]

So in an effort to keep the volume up in here it is time for another one of my polls. This time it is about what kind of tournament you would prefer to go to right now. We have all seen the discussion on the in game effects of the latest version of the rules, but I am interested in what effect this is having on peoples gaming choices. For proximity factors or significant events coaches will attend regardless of rules used just to get together and play, but given a choice of events to go to, what would you choose? Has the latest ruleset pushed you towards only playing league? Or has it opened up the tournament possibilities. How have you preferences changed in a response to the meta?

So vote and get a discussion going!

[besters]

I tend to go to tournaments i can make and have no preference on tiering or star access, so therefore don't have a category to vote in.

[Lyracian]

I tend to go to tournaments i can make and have no preference on tiering or star access, so therefore don't have a category to vote in.

My initial thought was the same but flipping it around if I could pick what would I want?

I think no stars and some sort of tiering. The issue becomes more how do you tier teams under the new rules? I can see value in a none-tiered event to gather some data but it still has the issue of people not wanting to take races they perceive as weak; and thus not getting any data for them anyway.

[Mystic Force]

This is the great thing about exploring a hypothetical we can just choose based on the actual criteria rather than have to deal with pesky things like how far do I have to drive or how many people are available to play in the local area. I will go to any tournament within 1 1/2hrs no question (pending commitments I cant get out off) I would probably go to a tournament up to 2 1/2 hrs depending on other logistical considerations how many games someone else to travel with etc. I would go to a tournament 4hrs away as long as its straight BB and I do not have to get my head around a variant I have never played or its a time of year where weather might become a factor and it has been a while since the last tournament. More than that it would have to be something special. At no point would ruleset be an issue if there were two tournaments equal distance it would probably come down to knowing some people who where going.

But without all those constraints I would probably make a choice, and it will likely start to show up in TO choices of what to put on, will the coaches preference and the TOs preference match? That's an interesting question of itself. It is also clear that what the ruleset chooses will have a significant effect on what is brought by the people coming aiming to end up at the top rather than those who are choosing because they want to play a particular team. Why each choice is made can depend on what a coach values, and that is the question I am hoping to elicit answers for really in the discussion section, informed by the voting part.

[Jayward]

In the hypothetical where I had multiple tournaments to choose from, I'd certainly choose no stars. Generally prefer tiered, but have voted untiered because I think it's what the game needs at the moments

[lunchmoney]

All other things being equal I would, currently, prefer no stars and non tiered. More matches played at that level are needed to get the needed data so the tiered tourneys can do accurate tiering (assuming the TO's goal of tiering is to make all teams as equal as possible).

[Jip]

Tiered tournaments, with tiered access to stars.

[sann0638]

No tiers, no stars, no thinking, ideally